<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- Generated on Fri, 25 May 2012 14:15:52 -0700 -->
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <atom:link href="http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <title>Intel Software Network Comments Feed</title>
    <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support</link>
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <item>
      <title>By Ray Moore Jr.</title>
      <description><![CDATA[ Article &#34;new-nehalem-support&#34; of YING has suspicious first sentence.  With &#39;or&#39; beside the word &#39;process&#39; and a period instead of a comma before a capital &#39;S&#39;, the one starting the word &#39;Several&#39;, capitalized to start a new sentence, I suppose, my new concern is to reinvent the old-fashioned synonym for &#39;chiefly&#39;....&#39;especial.&#39;  
  Performance benefits for the i7 in addition?  I be lost. ]]></description>
      <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/#comment-8911</link>
      <pubDate>Sun, 09 Nov 2008 01:40:45 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/#comment-8911</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>By Ray Moore Jr.</title>
      <description><![CDATA[ Having perused other posts from this author, I believe my confusion was correct, in that there is either a kaput semi-colon key by Ying&#39;s keyboard or it is missed for the comma.
Back to you. ]]></description>
      <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/#comment-8912</link>
      <pubDate>Sun, 09 Nov 2008 02:41:30 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/#comment-8912</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>By YING S (Intel)</title>
      <description><![CDATA[ Thanks for the feedback, we corrected the typo.
 ]]></description>
      <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/#comment-9101</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:54:33 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/#comment-9101</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>By Pink Anderson</title>
      <description><![CDATA[ If I want to learn more about:

1) Xeon 7400, (Darlington) 
2) Atom - Menlow 
3) Intel I7 - Nehalem EP

are their White Papers, Webcasts, newsletters, and especially Videos on Intel.com you can point me to?

P Anderson
 ]]></description>
      <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/#comment-9132</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:25:34 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/#comment-9132</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>By eweber@radvision.com</title>
      <description><![CDATA[ Both peryn and nehalem family of processors seems to use the same optimized library (p8 or y8). Is there actually some Nehalem specific optimization? ]]></description>
      <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/#comment-9175</link>
      <pubDate>Sun, 23 Nov 2008 12:34:59 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/#comment-9175</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>By YING S (Intel)</title>
      <description><![CDATA[ Several string processing functions are specifically optimized for Nehalem based processor. In the latest IPP 6.1 beta via Intel Parallel Studio beta, there are few more signal processing functions additionally optimized on Nehalm ( Intel® Core™ i7 processor)

 ]]></description>
      <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/#comment-21916</link>
      <pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:43:38 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/#comment-21916</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>By Vinz</title>
      <description><![CDATA[ Hey guys,
Nehalem works great for v6.0, but for existing users with IPP v4.0, does it work well for Nehalem?  Any performance degrdation? ]]></description>
      <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/#comment-26225</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:48:03 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/#comment-26225</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>By Ying S (Intel)</title>
      <description><![CDATA[ Your application building with Intel IPP v4.0 can still work on Nehalem and it would use the last optimzied code offered in v4.0, but it wont offer you the maximum performance on the latest Intel CPUs. That's why we continually provide the up-to-date optimizations for the latest Intel CPUs via each release. I would recommend you  check out the latest version of Intel IPP for best performance.  By the way, check the Intel IPP 6.1 via http://software.intel.com/en-us/intel-ipp which will be available shortly. ]]></description>
      <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/#comment-26229</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:51:31 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/#comment-26229</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>By matthieu.darbois</title>
      <description><![CDATA[ eweber seemed to have a valid comment which lacks a clear response (I guess that Ying Song (Intel) is one). So here it is again : Both peryn and nehalem family of processors seems to use the same optimized library (p8 or y8). Is there actually some Nehalem specific optimization? If yes, why the same optimized library is used. Not enough difference to make another library ? This means that additional dispatching is used in the optimized library ? ]]></description>
      <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/#comment-35778</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:52:20 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/#comment-35778</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>By loosers</title>
      <description><![CDATA[ weak ]]></description>
      <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/#comment-39268</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 03:56:35 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/#comment-39268</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>By xiehuanxie</title>
      <description><![CDATA[ The profermance is terrible when work with i7-870 in multiple-thread enviroment. ]]></description>
      <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/#comment-50041</link>
      <pubDate>Sun, 10 Oct 2010 22:49:07 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/#comment-50041</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>By Ying Song (Intel)</title>
      <description><![CDATA[ Hi xiehuanxie,

Do you have more specific performance data and Intel IPP version that we can try to reproduce the issue you reported here? 

I noticed your similiar report at http://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/showthread.php?t=77893&o=d&s=lr and we will exchange information via that forum thread.

Thanks,
Ying  ]]></description>
      <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/#comment-50044</link>
      <pubDate>Sun, 10 Oct 2010 23:36:23 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/#comment-50044</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>By xiehuanxie</title>
      <description><![CDATA[ hello Ying,

Sorry to trouble you here, we met a problem to use IPP work with i7, but seems it's really hard to get the root cause; I'll test it more, to replace some function call or use DMIP.

By the way, if there is no 'p8' dlls, IPP will choose 'v8' for i7, the performace does not have any big difference.

Regards, ]]></description>
      <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/#comment-50126</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2010 18:08:45 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/#comment-50126</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>By xiehuanxie</title>
      <description><![CDATA[ Hello Ying, finally I cached the method causes the delay:

IPPAPI( IppStatus, ippiCrossCorrValid_NormLevel_8u32f_C1R, ( const Ipp8u* pSrc, int srcStep,
        IppiSize srcRoiSize, const Ipp8u* pTpl, int tplStep, IppiSize tplRoiSize,
        Ipp32f* pDst, int dstStep ))

Params(pSrc, 96, {96,96}, pTpl, 26, {26,26}, pDst, 284)

I already submitted an issue to the Premier Support, you can test it if you are interesting. ]]></description>
      <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/#comment-50147</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2010 01:59:51 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/#comment-50147</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>By xiehuanxie</title>
      <description><![CDATA[ Here is the solution:
http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/performance-of-crypto-sample-for-openssl-slowing-down-on-hyper-threading-systems/ ]]></description>
      <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/#comment-50193</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2010 19:16:04 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/#comment-50193</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>By Ying Song (Intel)</title>
      <description><![CDATA[ Thanks for the notice, and I will let our support engineer know your finding. ]]></description>
      <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/#comment-50197</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2010 20:34:51 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/new-nehalem-support/#comment-50197</guid>
    </item>
  </channel></rss>
